Plaintiffs' Should be Entitled to The Full Amount of Their Medical Special Billings Says Los Angeles Personal Injury and Accident Lawyer Steven Peck
California personal injury lawyers wait with breath that is abated for the state Supreme Court's decision in Howell v. Hamilton Meats, a case that was argued before the tribunal on Wednesday May 25, 2011 indicates California Personal Injury and Accident lawyer Steven Peck.
The pivotal issue presented in this case is whether an injured plaintiff is entitled to the full amount of her medical bills as enumerated or for a lesser amount negotiated for by the insurance company with the medical provider.
The high court fired questions and inquiries at both the plaintiff and defendant's counsel as to why or why not a jury verdict should be reduced to reflect a lower, negotiated amount. In a decision that could affect many millions of dollars in personal injury recovery, the courtroom was packed with spectators and the case has garnered much national attention.
The Howell case began in 2005 when a Hamilton Meats truck made an illegal u-turn in Encinitas, California. This maneuver resulted in a collision with the vehicle driver by plaintiff Howell. While Howell survived the incident, she was left with significant medical bills totaling $130,000. As is typical in many personal injury actions, Howell's insurance provider negotiated with the medical team providing her care and reduced her expenses to just $60,000.
At the trial, a jury awarded Howell the full $130,000 based upon proffered evidence of her damages. The judge reduced the verdict to reflect the amount actually paid after negotiations- $60,000. Howell and her legal team immediately appealed the decision which eventually made it to California's Supreme Court for oral arguments.
Dozens of amicus curiae briefs have been filed in this case in support of or in opposition to the proposed outcome which could severely limit plaintiffs' recovery in personal injury actions. While the court's decision is not due for ninety days, many have speculated how the outcome of this case will impact future California plaintiffs. Insurance providers will be inclined to negotiate for the lowest possible settlement amount between themselves and medical providers in an effort to reduce any substantial payout amount to injured parties.
One pivotal argument in the case, made by the defense, is that medical providers routinely charge exorbitant amounts for medical services never incurred. Hospitals also write off a portion of plaintiffs' medical bills. The defendant contended that personal injury plaintiffs should not receive the benefits of a "windfall" resulting from exaggerated medical expenses. They should be entitled to recover the true value of their treatment- as negotiated by the insurance provider.
Plaintiff's counsel argued that the plaintiff should be entitled to recover the full amount based solely on the fact that she diligently maintained health insurance. By virtue of her enrollment in the insurance program, the company was in a position to be able to negotiate on her behalf for a lesser amount. Why should the insurance company's negotiation tactics affect the plaintiff's ability to collect in full for her injuries. This argument is precisely why the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's verdict reduction as it held that personal injury defendants should never benefit from a plaintiff's diligent maintenance of an insurance policy.
The holding in Howell stands to substantially affect all Californians involved in personal injury actions as jury verdicts will be grossly reduced to reflect the actual amount paid by an insurance provider.
